Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 30 October, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012
Dalbir Singh and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another ..Respondents
2. Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012
Kuldeep Singh and others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
Date of decision : 30.10.2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for the petitioners
in Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 and
for respondents No.2 and 3 in
Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012.
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners
in Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012 and
for respondent No.2 in
Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012.
Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
for respondent No.1 - State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
By this common judgment, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 as well as Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012, shall be disposed of.
Petitioners, namely, Dalbir Singh, Gurnam Singh, Ramesh Singh, Gurdev Singh and Satpal Singh have filed Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 for quashing of cross case registered vide Rapat No.25 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 148 read Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 2 with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Malout in FIR No.34 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Malout on the basis of compromise. The complainant-injured in cross case is Kuldeep Singh @ Ghammu whereas petitioners-Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Sarwan Singh, Naseeb Singh, Jagjit Singh, Daler Singh and Darshan Singh have filed Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012 for quashing of FIR No.34 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 336, 148 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Malout. In this case, complainant is Gurnam Singh and injured is Dalbir Singh.
After issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 16.05.2012, parties were directed to appear before the trial Court for recording of their statements with regard to the compromise and the trial Court was directed to record the statements of both the parties to its satisfaction to know its genuineness that the statements are not the result of any pressure or coercion in any manner and to send a report with regard to validity or otherwise of the compromise effected between the parties.
In response to the directions issued by this Court on 16.05.2012, a report in this regard has been sent by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-JMIC, Malout, which is on record. Along with the report, statements of the parties have also been sent. It has also been mentioned in the report that the compromise effected between the parties is as per free will and is without any threat, promise or Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 3 undue influence. It has also been mentioned in the report that the parties were identified on the basis of their ration cards and other documents in proof of identification. It has also been mentioned that no proclaimed offender proceedings are pending against either of the parties and the Court is satisfied with the statement made by the parties.
Complainants as well as injured in both the cases have also affirmed the factum of compromise and have no objection in quashing of the FIR and cross case registered against each other.
Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Vipin Kumar also submits that the cancellation report has been prepared after recording the statements of the parties and the same is likely to be presented before the Court.
As per allegations in the FIR, the dispute arose between the parties when some boys were playing Cricket and a quarrel took place while playing and only on the basis of that dispute and the injuries caused to both the parties, the FIR was registered. There was no intention to cause injuries to any person as the dispute arose out of the game played by the children of both the parties. The complaints were made and FIR was registered against each other. Subsequently, with the intervention of the respectables and other persons, the dispute was settled by way of compromise. The petitioners in both the petitions are not habitual offenders as no other case is pending against them. Moreover, no purpose would be served by continuation of the proceedings as complainants as well as Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 4 injured are not going to support the case of the prosecution. It would be totally wastage of the time of the Court. Moreover, Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1052, criminal proceedings can be quashed. As per Section 320 Cr.P.C., the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable and offence under Section 326 IPC is non-compoundable but in view of the ratio of judgments, even non-compoundable offences can be compounded and criminal proceedings can be quashed.
Accordingly, both petitions i.e., Criminal Misc. No. M-9545 of 2012 and Criminal Misc. No. M-9643 of 2012 are allowed. Impugned criminal proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No.34 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Malout and cross case registered vide Rapat No.25 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Malout in FIR No.34 dated 25.02.2005, under Sections 326, 323, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar, Malout as well as all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners in both the petitions, namely, Dalbir Singh, Gurnam Singh, Ramesh Singh, Gurdev Singh, Satpal Singh, Kuldeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Sarwan Singh, Naseeb Singh, Jagjit Singh, Daler Singh and Darshan Singh.
30.10.2012 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE